MARCH 2022 NEWS
Featured topic: coronavirus
On Science-Based Medicine,
Scott Gavura posted:
“Vitamin D for the prevention of COVID-19: A randomized controlled trial.” “A large clinical trial shows vitamin D supplementation had no effect on COVID-19.”
David Gorski posted:
“It rises again! Bleach as an ‘early treatment’ alternative to vaccines and a cure for COVID-19,” concerning “Miracle Mineral Solution” (MMS). A related post on Respectful Insolence was entitled “Mark Sircus: MMS (bleach) for COVID ‘vaccine-induced cancer’.” MMS is chlorine dioxide, and can produced severe side effects.
“Ivermectin: the acupuncture of COVID-19 treatments.” “As high-quality evidence increasingly and resoundingly shows that ivermectin does not work against COVID-19, advocates are doing what acupuncture advocates do: Turning to lower quality ‘positive’ studies to claim incorrectly that their favorite ineffective treatment actually does ‘work’.”
“Recycling old antivax tropes as 'bioethics'-based arguments against COVID-19 vaccination for children.” “A recently published article in Bioethics makes ethical arguments against vaccinating children against COVID-19. If you change the word ‘COVID-19’ to measles, chickenpox, or rotavirus (or others), this article could have been published on one of the higher-brow antivax websites in 2010.”
Jonathan Howard posted:
“They have names.” “Reality is not ‘fear-based messaging,’ and fewer children will die moving forward if their parents know a bit more about what the virus can do and how the vaccine can keep children safe.”
“Through the looking glass with Dr. Jay Bhattacharya.” “Have we completely abandoned the idea that words have meaning?”
“The consequences of a medical myth.” “Unfortunately, the idea that healthy children don’t die of COVID is now this pandemic’s version of ‘we only use 10% of our brain.’ However, healthy children have absolutely died of COVID. There is no reason more children should die in the future given that an effective vaccine exists for those older than 5. Sadly, thanks to myths spread by doctors, many children remain at risk. Medical myths have real-world consequences.”
“COVID and our warped sense of normal.” “A child getting sick with a vaccine-preventable disease was unacceptable prior to COVID. An unvaccinated child getting severely sick with COVID should be unacceptable today. We should not normalize children getting sick – and rarely dying- from any disease for which a vaccine exists. Children are not supposed to die. This didn’t used to be controversial.”
“Science fiction at the Wall Street Journal.” “Repeated errors of basic facts are unacceptable in a prestigious newspaper under any circumstances, but especially so when the topic is a virus that has killed over 1,000 children and a vaccine that can help prevent these rare tragedies.”
Steven Novella posted:
“New study - mRNA vaccines safe.” “After more than 298 million doses give, the side effects of the mRNA vaccines are minimal and transient.”
“Update on long COVID.” “When calculating the risk vs benefit of interventions, such as vaccines and mask mandates, we cannot look only at hospitalizations and deaths. We also need to consider what the long-term burden of long COVID is likely to be. At the very least this is one more reason for everyone to get fully vaccinated and boosted.”
On Respectful Insolence, “Orac” posted:
“'Debate' and 'censorship' vs. quality control.” “Efforts to hold COVID-19 disinformation-spreading physicians accountable are leading to increasing calls by cranks for a ‘debate’ with them. This is a disinformation tactic, not an honest call for debate…refusing to ‘debate’ cranks is not cowardice. It’s wisdom. Holding physicians responsible for the quackery and disinformation they spread is not ‘censorship.’ It’s quality control.”
“Urgency of Normal, the Great Barrington Declaration, and the antivax movement.”
“The Brownstone Institute vs. 'vaccine fanatics' in The Epoch Times.” “Brownstone Institute flacks Martin Kulldorff and Jay Bhattacharya swear they are ‘not antivaccine.’ Why, then, are they echoing a very old antivax trope by claiming ‘vaccine fanatics’ are making people antivaccine?”
“Jay Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorf want to hold 'lockdowners' accountable.” “Great Barrington Declaration author Dr. Jay Bhattacharya claimed that the pandemic was over and ‘regular people’ will hold “them” accountable, while coauthor Martin Kulldorff Tweeted an article with an image of a guillotine. Do they know that calls for ‘justice’ like this echo an old and very dark antivax fantasy?”
“How can germ theory denial explain contagion?” “In Ms. Sell’s world of germ theory denial, apparently all we have to do to get the COVID-19 pandemic under control is to harmonize everyone’s vibes to a happy, healthy frequency.”
“Autopsies for everyone will end vaccine misinformation immediately?” “Tech bro turned antivaxxer Steve Kirsch has a simple solution that will end vaccine misinformation: An autopsy for everyone who dies within 2 months of COVID vaccination. So simple, yet so wrong.”
Edzard Ernst posted:
“Daily prayer against severe COVID – an update of a study started two years ago.” The study was terminated due to low enrollment. “Whatever the reason, I find it sad, possibly even unethical that research funds are being wasted on such nonsense…When the study was first announced in 2020, it received huge publicity. I, therefore, think that the investigators should have had the decency to also publicly announce that they failed to conclude it.”
“Preference of so-called alternative medicine predicts negative attitudes toward vaccination.”
“Excess mortality due to the COVID-19 pandemic.” Mortality data indicate that 18 million people died from the pandemic as of the end of 2021.
“Echo chambers of vaccine hesitancy and so-called alternative medicine (SCAM).” “…strongly anti-vaccine users frequently share content from sources of a commercial nature; typically sources that sell alternative health products for profit.”
“Micronutrient supplementation for patients with COVID-19 infection.” A meta-analysis concluded “individual micronutrient supplementations, including vitamin C, vitamin D, and zinc, were not associated with a mortality benefit in COVID-19. Vitamin D may be associated with lower intubation rate and shorter LOS [length of hospital stay], but vitamin C did not reduce intubation rate or LOS.”
Other topics
Best of the blogs, March – on Science-Based Medicine,
Jann Bellamy:
Posted “State Attorneys General pursue consumer protection laws against stem cell clinics.” Cases in New York, Georgia, and Washington were discussed. Patients pay thousands of dollars for unproven treatments. “Until there is a comprehensive regulatory scheme in place, unscrupulous practitioners and their associates will continue to abuse patients for profit with unproven stem cell therapies and bogus clinical trials.”
Harriet Hall:
Discussed CurrentBody's LED mask, which allegedly “provides ‘anti-aging’ red and near-infra-red light therapy to the face.” “Conclusion: Glowing testimonials but no conclusive evidence. The testimonials go far beyond the science and claim benefits that are subjective and are almost certainly placebo effects not due to the mask.”
Wrote “Socks to treat high blood pressure?” “The claims for Boliav socks are too incoherent to make sense of. I can’t take them seriously.” The product allegedly works through reflexology at acupuncture points, and employs magnetism.
Posted “Death by aromatherapy.” “An aromatherapy room spray was contaminated with bacteria that caused melioidosis, resulting in deaths and serious sequelae.”
Steven Novella:
Posted “Allergy Release Technique.” “A dubious intervention for food allergies follows a typical pattern for such treatments…So we have two proven interventions one quack intervention and one magic theater. I wonder which components of this intervention had any effect. The study results, as worthless as they are given the severe limitations mentioned above, were also not impressive.”
David Weinberg:
Posted “The Stem Cell Ophthalmology Treatment Study (SCOTS): Part 2.” “…we continue an analysis of a dubious stem cell clinical trial, with an examination of the clinic and personnel involved.”
On Respectful Insolence, “Orac”:
Posted “Here we go again: Is evidence-based medicine an illusion?” “Every so few years, someone writes in a reputable journal that evidence-based medicine is corrupt or an ‘illusion.’ Here we go again, this time in The BMJ, and antivaxxers are going wild.”
Edzard Ernst:
Discussed homeopathy in four posts:
“The body of homeopathy is rotten to the core.” A review by Gartlehner et al. (BMJ Evid Based Med. 2022 Mar 15:bmjebm-2021-111846 paper) found that “Since 2002, almost 38% of registered homeopathy trials have remained unpublished, and 53% of published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have not been registered.” Moreover, “primary outcomes were often altered or changed. This likely affects the validity of the body of evidence of homeopathic literature and may overestimate the true treatment effect of homeopathic remedies.” Ernst noted that “the few reviews suggesting that homeopathy works beyond placebo (and are thus celebrated by homeopaths) are most likely false-positive. And the many reviews showing that homeopathy does not work would demonstrate this fact even clearer if the reporting bias had been accounted for. Or, to put it bluntly: The body of evidence on homeopathy is rotten to the core and therefore not reliable.” “Orac” also discussed the review on Respectful Insolence, in a post entitled “Why are so many clinical trials of homeopathy ‘positive’?”
“Homeopathy against radioactive radiation – time to stop this dangerous nonsense.”
“Individualized homeopathy for plantar fasciitis? A new clinical trial with a positive conclusion.” “In my view, a correct conclusion would read something like this: Our study failed to recruit a sufficient number of patients. Therefore, no conclusions about the efficacy of IHM can be drawn from it.”
He reported that insurance contracts for homeopathy have been canceled in the German state of Bremen. “Effective lobbying and financial interests have protected German homeopathy for decades, but the eventual victory of reason, science, and evidence was inevitable.”
Had four posts dealing with spinal manipulation and other therapies for low back pain:
He discussed a review of meditation for chronic low back pain. “The problem with this conclusion is that the primary studies are mostly of poor quality. For instance, they do not control for placebo effects (which is obviously not easy in this case)…However, since the same limitations apply to chiropractic and osteopathy, and since meditation has far fewer risks than these approaches, I would gladly recommend meditation over manipulative therapies. Or, to put it plainly: in terms of risk/benefit balance, meditation seems preferable to spinal manipulation.”
He posted “Which treatments are best for acute and subacute mechanical non-specific low back pain? A systematic review with network meta-analysis.” “I would add (as I have done so many times before) that the best approach must be the one that has the most favorable risk/benefit balance. Since spinal manipulation is burdened with considerable harm (as discussed so many times before), exercise and heat wraps seem to be preferable. Or, to put it bluntly: if you suffer from NS-LBP, see a physio and not osteos or chiros!”
He discussed a study on “Multidisciplinary vs. chiropractic care for low back pain.” “This is undoubtedly an interesting study. It begs many questions. The two that puzzle me most are: 1. Why publish the results only 12 years after the trial was concluded? The authors provide a weak explanation, but I would argue that it is unethical to sit on a publicly funded study for so long. 2. Why did the researchers not include a third group of patients who were treated by their GP like in normal routine? The 2nd question is, I think, important because the findings could mostly be a reflection of the natural history of LBP. We can probably all agree that, at present, the optimal treatment for LBP has not been found. To me, the results look as though they indicate that it hardly matters how we treat LBP, the outcome is always very similar. If we throw the maximum amount of care at it, the results tend to be marginally better. But, as the authors admit, there comes a point where we have to ask, is it worth the investment?”
He wrote “Lumbar disc herniation treated with SCAM [so-called alternative medicine]: 10-year results of an observational study.” “The authors conclude that the SCAM produced beneficial long-term effects. But isn’t it much more likely that the outcomes their uncontrolled observations describe are purely or at least mostly a reflection of the natural history of lumbar disc herniation? If I remember correctly, I learned a long time ago in medical school that spinal manipulation is contraindicated in lumbar disc herniation. If that is so, the results might have been better, if the patients of this study had not received any SCAM at all. In other words, are the results perhaps due to firstly t he natural history of the condition and secondly to the detrimental effects of the SCAM the investigators applied?”
He posted twice concerning acupuncture:
“The new BMJ article on acupuncture turns out to be a bonanza of logical fallacies, sloppy thinking, and uncritical promotion.” “…the series of articles constitutes paid advertising for TCM. The BMJ’s peer-review process must have been less than rigorous in this case.”
“Today is WORLD SLEEP DAY. And here is another dodgy acupuncture review on insomnia.” Even at the risk of endangering your sleep, I disagree with this conclusion. Here are some of my reasons: Chinese acupuncture trials invariably are positive which means they are as reliable as a 4£ note. Most trials were of poor methodological quality. Only one made an attempt to control for placebo effects. Many followed the A+B versus B design which invariably produces (false-) positive results. Only 4 out of 14 studies mentioned adverse events which means that 10 violated research ethics.”
Wrote “Bioresonance: a new (and most underwhelming) study.” “Bioresonance is based on the notion that one can diagnose and treat illness with electromagnetic waves and that, via resonance, such waves can influence disease on a cellular level…I think someone here is misleading us by trying to convince us that an utterly bogus therapy is effective. In my view, this study is as clear an example of scientific misconduct as I have seen for a long time.”
Posted “Neurodoron, an anthroposophic medication, for stress relief?” “The study had no control group and therefore one cannot possibly attribute any of the observed changes to the anthroposophic remedy… In view of this, I am tempted to rephrase their conclusions as follows: This study adds no valuable information on the effects of Neurodoron® in self-medication. The results from this NIS showed what utter nonsense the Weleda marketing team is capable of producing in an attempt to boost sales.”
Discussed a review of horticultural therapy. “I have considerable problems with this review and its conclusion: It is simply untrue that there were 13 RCTs [randomized controlled trials]; several of these studies were clearly not randomized. Most of the studies are of very poor quality. For instance, they often did not make the slightest attempt to control for non-specific effects, yet they concluded that the observed outcome was a specific effect of HT. My biggest problem does, however, not relate to methodological issues. My main issue with this paper is one of definition. What is a ‘therapy’ and what not? If we call a bit of gardening a ‘therapy’ are we not descending to the level of those who call a bit of shopping ‘retail therapy’? To put it differently, is HT superior to retail therapy? And do we need RCTs to answer this question? What is wrong with encouraging people who like gardening to just do it?... Not every past-time or hobby that makes you feel good is a therapy and needs to be scrutinized as such.”
Wrote “Brite: ‘utilising the power of nootropic superfoods’ – HYPE OR HARM?” “Based on the evidence that I have seen, the herbal drink ‘Brite’ has not been shown to be an effective nootropic. In addition, there are legitimate concerns about the safety of the product.”
Discussed a review of ginseng for CFS/ME (chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis). “I am at a loss in comprehending how the authors of the above-named review could speak of evidence for potential benefit. The evidence from the ‘observational study’ is largely irrelevant for deciding on the effectiveness of ginseng, and the second, more rigorous study fails to show that ginseng has an effect.”
March 28 – Harriet Hall wrote “Can these eyedrops replace reading glasses?” for Skeptical Inquirer. The product is a new prescription eyedrop named Vuity. “In short, these drops are no panacea. Although they may reduce the need for reading glasses for a few hours, they will not eliminate the need for reading glasses for most people. They are expensive, and they cause headaches and other side effects for many patients. Research is ongoing, and better products may soon be available.”
Addition to previous months
February 21 – “What Prince Charles tells us about complementary medicine – an essay by Edzard Ernst” was published (BMJ. 2022 Feb 21;376:o310 Opening paragraphs). “Prince Charles’s advocacy offers an insight into the logic that dominates complementary and alternative medicine, and a tale of misplaced influence that is an opportunity lost…” Ernst explains several logical fallacies present in Charles’s positions: appealing to tradition, appealing to nature, strawman fallacy, “post hoc propter hoc” fallacy, and non-sequitur fallacy.